Understanding Obama’s African visit

July 7, 2013 : Odilim Basil Enwegbara

Odilim Enwegbara

Not visiting Nigeria by the United States President, Barack Obama, during his visit to Africa would not have become a matter of serious debate had it not been that the country was earlier on the list, but later suddenly dropped without any plausible reasons. The reason why it shouldn’t have is because in international diplomacy, decisions about places or countries national leaders visit or do not visit are simply the prerogative those nations, and they do not owe anyone or any nation explanations for their decisions.

Underlining the very important fact that even though Obama is the US president, given that his official oversea trips are never a jamboree but as the chief corporate officer of the US, such are always conducted to maximise national interest, it is hard for the president to simply go to any country without either the immediate and expectant strategic US national interests being the reason. For example, his first and only African visit in his first term in office was his 2009 less-than-24-hour rush to Ghana to negotiate big oil deals for American oil majors.

Obama is pursuing a hegemonic foreign policy in Africa, the same way it is done everywhere in the world, on the basis of projecting the American Century as constructed in 1941 by the War and Peace Studies of the Council on Foreign Relations. This policy, as, the US State Department’s senior planning official in 1948, George Kennan, made clear, notes, ‘’…we (Americans) will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our intention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objective. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.’’

Agreeing this Machiavellian-Darwinian devil-may-care foreign policy, pursued at all cost, the CIA Director of Plans, Richard Bissell, had to add, “The CIA’s interface with the rest of the world needs to be better promoted through our friends in foreign governments…We need repression if we hope to divide these societies into owners and slaves. We need to put the people under continual duress and in a perpetual state of imbalance, so that confused and demoralised, apathy on a massive scale will result.”

That is why it’s erroneous to believe, based on some carefully constructed facades of exporting freedom and democracy around the world, that America is a softer, kinder, and gentler empire. It’s important to fully appreciate what the US foreign policy truly stands for, or else we wrongly view Obama as an African benefactor simply because he is an African-American and Kenya, his patriarchal country.

It’s this flawed understanding of the US foreign policy toward Africa that makes us not to appreciate that were Obama the US president during the apartheid years, he too would, without ‘’sentimentality’’ support the policy, as all American presidents did until South Africa became independent with Nelson Mandela as its first black president.

If anyone is in doubt, then how come instead of dismantling George W. Bush’s militarisation of Africa, in fact, he increased the US unwelcome military presence in the continent?; how come Obama drastically cut America’s HIV/AIDS funding in Africa?; how come in a speech during a town hall meeting in South Africa rather than call for Africans to build better equipped universities across the continent, he cleverly was “bribing” Africa’s best and brightest to come to study in the US, where they would eventually be persuaded to remain, which has become the newest brain drain strategy of the US?

Should these actions appear scandalous, then, what should we call the actions of President Harry Truman, who notwithstanding his patriarchal English blood, not only abruptly cancelled America’s Lend-Lease aid to Britain on September 2, 1945 but went as far as refusing the pleas by the British Prime Minister, Clement Atlee, to grant Britain what was considered a live-and-death loan of $6bn to stop the country’s bleeding war-torn economy? Didn’t Truman take those actions simply because depriving Britain access to post-war funding from the US was the easiest way to quicken Britain’s bankruptcy and the dissolution of the Sterling Preference, which was the last pillar holding whatever remained of the British Empire?

Isn’t it obvious that Obama stayed away from Africa, including from his patriarchal land, during his first term in office simply because visiting or associating with Africa was seen as a big political risk he had better avoided since visiting the continent for most Americans would be going to dispense American taxpayers’ dollars to Africans who they still associate with poverty, disease, war, and corruption, otherwise he should be endangering his reelection? Therefore, whether we all know it or not, Obama’s recent visit to Africa only took place because without having to face the American electorate in any future election, now visiting Africa constituted no more reelection burden.

Not only that he now visited because he is free to visit Africa, but discovering the blunders it has been making for ignoring Africa for so long, it’s understandable why Obama tried to jump the very line China is leading by exploiting his African patriarchal blood. Stephen Hayes, who as the CEO of Corporate Council on Africa, oversees the US investment and trade in Africa was right crying out loud how America has been missing out in Africa when he said that continuing to ‘’view Africa as a case for (aid) than as…an opportunity for partnership’’ is costing America dearly in this new scramble for Africa’s 900 million consumer market and its yet-to-be touched natural resources.

But unknown to Obama, no amount of his China-bashing in Africa would make Africans not recognise the Chinese as the true friends of Africans who came when others, including the US, still saw Africa as a hopeless continent that should be ignored.

In the usual American arrogance, the same Obama on a visit to win the heart and soul of his patriarchal brethren insultingly told his hosts that, something like, “You know what, we, Americans, don’t need your African energy”, even when saying so simply contradicted his 2009 rush to Ghana to negotiate big oil deals for American oil majors such as ExxonMobil and Chevron. It’s really unbelievable that a well-informed president said so forgetting that the US Environmental Protection Agency vehicle emission and fuel standards are not based on Texas oil but on Nigeria’s Bonny Light because it is easy to refine, produces more gallons per barrel, more mileage per litre, and above all with its high octane number guarantees maximum performance with low knocking and pining engine effects, but mostly because of its low sulfur and low carbon emission. Rather than being uninformed about these, Obama’s statement was a carefully orchestrated de-marketing of African energy.

And when he told Africans how beneficial the African Growth Opportunity Act has been to Africa, make no mistake, he is not unaware that rather than the framers having the benefit of participating African countries in mind, given that they framed in such a way that ensured that critical inputs should be sourced from the US, they systematically shifted most of the benefits to the US, including making sure that with little or no local content, the expected economic and social trickle-down effects would be minimal in participating African countries.

Certainly, Nigeria would have been included on the list had he truly not based his visit on more than seeking trade and investment from Africa; had he not come to sow a new seed of rivalry between South Africa and Nigeria, the two big powers in Africa, who recently met to seek ways to work together for a better Africa. That could be seen from his endless emphasis on Africa’s largest economy status, and should as the continent’s natural centre of gravity, only look up to America for partnership and less to big African economies such as Nigeria and Kenya. Now, it is understandable that it is an effort to achieve this divide and dominate agenda that Nigeria was first put on the list and later removed rather than on the flimsy excuse that Boko Haram and insecurity in the country were the reason, as if the sect and insecurity were not already there when the earlier decision to add Nigeria was made.

Also, could the so-called ‘’unfavourable security reports’’ be coming from Olusegun Obasanjo given his present face-off with President Jonathan or from the yet-to-be formed APC opposition party, since if they were based on true security reports by the CIA and State Department, then such reports would have stated that the country’s security situation rather than worsening is improving tremendously since the late 2012? The inclusion of corruption is bizarre because corruption under Jonathan is far less from what it was during Obasanjo years and still Clinton visited.

Since Obama has told Nigerians that they don’t matter to America even in Africa, isn’t it time we began to look up to China since boosting the country’s trade and investment requires us to head to where everyone else, including the US, is today headed? In other words, isn’t it obvious that with China’s whopping $3.7tn foreign reserves scanning the world for investment, Abuja should expect better deals embracing Beijing? Certainly, the forthcoming visit to China by Jonathan is an opportunity to build new win-win strategic partnerships with the world’s most solvent economy. It’s time to bargain hard in Nigeria’s interest.

It is time africa takes her destiny in her hand. Nobody will build africa for us, not even US or China. They need us more than we need them.

Michael Kadiri

I am glad to have found a Nigerian commentator who is better abreast of the dynamics of International Relations, rather than the simpletons I read all the time who are too lazy to ask the relevant question: why? I agree entirely with your analysis. Nigeria should adopt the same attitude that former UK foreign secretary Douglas Hurd so aptly captured: ‘no permanent friends or foes, only permanent interests’. Since then we see too much that demonstrates that approach to foreign policy. Africa and Nigeria should understand this and start to flirt with and do deals with other partners. Like my fellow contributor Segun indicates, we are the goose that will lay the golden egg!

osazuwa

we dnt need Obama in Nigeria ,he is not welcomed here in Nigeria ,he is not d messiah that will liberate us neither is he moses that God has sent to deliver us.we Nigerians are our solutions to the problems hitting us hard in the face.We can are and can do better than americans if only we stop fighting ourselves and selling ourselves cheaply to those hypocrites.

Rev. Michael Angley Ogwuche

I quite agree with you, Africa especially Nigeria must stop this ‘little brother’ syndrome by looking up to some economic super power and take their destiny in their own very hands instead of looking for some glorious miracle and lets we forget there is no free lunch anywhere.
I am by no means a scientist but I am an absolute believer in the God of creation and as such I believe that our continent and our nations have all that it will take to propel the mechanism of progress, the earlier we recognise and acknowledge this the better for us and our children. Well written and researched piece keep it up Oidilim!

Lifeline

Yup, it is so annoying that some people are irked that Obama did not visit Nigeria. We have what America wants. Whether he visits Nigeria or not, business and deals are going on as usual. We have the largest economy in Africa (forget south africa)! South Africans are begging to get one deal or the other in nigeria since MTN came to nigeria and opened the floodgate. You know how the Americans behave, they use diversionary tactic to see if nigeria would come forward to ask for a deal that America benefits more on the long run than nigeria. God forbid!!! Those days are long gone. We ain’t that stupid any more.

Simon Akpadaka

This is indeed a well articulated article.

I absolutely agree with Michael Kadiri that we should pursue our permanent
interest rather than seek permanent friends or foes. Uncle Sam is no Father
Christmas you know. US definitely pursue her permanent interest 24/7 and I
think we should borrow a leaf from her in this regard. The AGOA act is met to
source cheap and high quality raw material for American companies at the
expense of Africans. It is another modern slavery. The material are taken in
their most raw form and exported to the US without opportunity for adding value
at the local level before export to the US. US get the materials, process them
and give them the best packaging you can ever image and export same back to
African at unimaginable prices.

US and the other advanced economies of the world want us to sell our own crude
oil to local refineries at international prices so that they will continue to
have the competitive advantages. A refinery operating here is already at a
disadvantage because of the peculiarities of our environment- bad roads,
limited access to quality manpower, and lack of electricity and so on.
Why wouldn’t we sell to local refineries below international prices to provide
incentives to private refineries owners to engage in production of petroleum locally?
The US of this world will not want us to have functional refineries because
they want to keep their own refineries running at our expense. How long will
this continue?

It is high time we took our destiny in our hands because we have all it takes
to be a world leader. We are blessed with natural resources that we can
leverage on to become a world power such that the likes of US and UK will
be trailing behind us.

Ricky

We do not need Obaba visit anyway. All the visits we have had in the past have not made any difference in our lives. But unfortunately, every time we elect a president in Nigeria, his first point of call is White House.

Michael Ijere

False information and wrong assumption, who told this writer that Nigeria was EALIER on any list for OBAMAS gist ? Obama cannot visit all African countries in one trip, next time he might choose to visit Nigeria , there is no big deal about this.

Osilama Okuofu

President Barack Obama recently concluded a seven-day three-nation tour of Africa beginning with Senegal, Tanzania and ending with South Africa. Weeks to the commencement, the news making the rounds was the argument over whether he would visit Nigeria, and when it was eventually confirmed he would not, there was angst! Why, I still do not know. Would his coming have solved all our problems? He has not solved America’s problems. Lunatics still run around shooting people, their debt profile still pathetic, unemployment queues still snaking from block to block. The high-point of his visit was his pledge to facilitate a USD7 billion power grant to light up Africa and Nigeria is amongst the beneficiaries. So what was all the hoopla about? He did not have to come here to help, see?

The reasons given by the White House for his not visiting Nigeria was his unhappiness over the human rights situation in the military-occupied North-East pursuant to the Federal Government of Nigeria’s fight against Islamic terrorists in Borno, Adamawa & Yobe States with special reference to the Bagga killings. Without boots on the ground and proper investigations carried out, the ‘Policeman of the world’ jumped to the conclusion that there were extra-judicial killings carried out by the Nigerian Military. This was refuted by the authorities who blamed Boko Haram insurgents for this atrocity while querying the satellite imagery used by America in reaching their conclusions. Coming from a country that had the audacity to infringe on the territorial integrity of another by killing Osama Bin Ladin, that is the height of hypocrisy. What gives the US the moral justification to dictate to other countries how they should deal with their terrorism problems is dizzying as recent events in Yobe State has shown.

A few days ago, Nigerians woke up to the horror again of hearing about the killing of forty nine people at a boarding school in Yobe State by the insurgents. The very same people America wants Nigeria to treat as human beings. Killers without a shred of humanity America is advocating the rule of the law for. The very same rule of law Britain foolishly applied in the case of Sheik Mustada until he became a bone in their neck. Britain had to sign a treaty with Jordan to get rid of that terrorist. Who signs treaties anymore? America in all her sainthood has not deemed it proper to condemn this dastardly and sub-human act. They should in fact apologise to the government of Nigeria for their ‘goodie-two-shoes’ posture and take their noses away from our affairs if they cannot support this fight against these religious extremists and marauders. It is instructive to let America know that we are not barbarians in Nigeria. Our military boys are well trained in some of the very best academies in the world, Sandhurst and West Point amongst them, and they know what the rules of engagement are. To therefore cast aspersion on our valiant warriors putting their very lives in arms way for our protection is totally unacceptable and condemned in strong terms……for all it is worth!

And Other…….

A coup recently took place in Egypt toppling a democratically elected president, Morsi. Though not particularly liked because of his bent towards a section of the populace, Morsi nevertheless represented the wishes of a majority of his people through the ballot. America, the bastion of democracy, has not condemned this rape on democracy. Why would it? Egypt, under Morsi, was not a friend to Isreal and the West so he was expedient even if democracy had to be raped! America has even gone to state that it will not likely stop aid to Egypt. While I agree that Morsi was a disaster & Egypt deserved better, standards must be maintained and democracy cannot be truncated at a whim simply to satisfy a particular section of the populace, in this case, the very vocal minority. In a few years, they would have had the opportunity to vote him out.

Columnists

"Mr Orubebe, you are former minister of the Federal Republic, you are a statesman in your own right and you must be careful about what you say and about the allegations or accusations that you make and certainly you must be careful about your public conducts."

INEC's Chairman, Attairu Jega cautioning Orubebe over his conduct during the release of the Presidential election results.